thesweetcheat wrote:
Also, I have to agree with Tiompan that more likely explanations (e.g. that the structure is largely as it always was, including a single chamber, and that some bits have subsequently slipped or fallen down) would need to be properly discounted before less likely explanations were seriously considered.
Then you need to read the book Alken. There is too much evidence to show that it is not like it originally was. It's a jigsaw puzzle with some pieces out of place. On initial build all the side stones were supportive. It was a proper 'sealed' chamber unlike it is now with the exception of the two entrances and the broken piece off one of the front flankers caused when the capstone slipped no doubt.
Only a full excavation will prove who is right or wrong (presumably) but when is that likely to happen...never!
|